A Response to
Another Critic of My Open Letter to the President of the University of
Toledo: Did Dixon's Remarks Disqualify Her from Her Position at Human
Resources?
The
response that I have received for my "Open Letter" has been
overwhelmingly positive. But at least one person thinks that I "missed
the point" completely. Someone sent the following letter to Peter
LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth (http://americansfortruth.com),
on 5/10/08 and Peter forwarded it to me:
Peter, your Prof.
Gagnon missed the point about Toledo University and Ms. Dixon. Missed
the point entirely. If you read her column in the paper, she writes
about information she knows only because she is vice president for
human resources. It is false of her to claim she was writing as a
private citizen when she writes about things in her professional
capacity. In her professional capacity she is the Equal Employment
Opportunity enforcement officer for the University. Toledo University
prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In othr
words, at Toledo University, gays and lesbians have civil rights. And
Ms. Dixon is paid as the chief enforcement officer of those civil
rights. Ms. Dixon made very public that she does not believe gays and
lesbians HAVE civil rights. How CAN she enforce rights she does not
believe people even have? THAT is the issue. And that is why she was
fired yesterday. Prof. Gagnon just did not get it. He and you also
keep forgetting that religion is a choice and enjoys civil rights
protections. Please be more careful on who you publish on your
website. I think Prof. Gagnon was a mistake. His research was a bit
sloppy too though I don\'t have to go through each and every piece
with you now.
Here
is my response:
It is the
person who criticized me for missing the point who has it wrong.
First, Ms.
Dixon did not state that she wouldn't carry out the school's policies
with regard to sexual orientation. To the contrary, she stated: "To
suggest that homosexual employees on one campus are being denied
benefits avoids the fact that ALL employees across the two campuses
regardless of their sexual orientation, have different benefit plans.
The university is working diligently to address this issue in a
reasonable and cost-efficient manner, for all employees, not just one
segment."
Second, Ms. Dixon has a right to express her opinion that
homosexual attraction and behavior is not comparable to being black, a
female, or a handicapped person, even in her capacity as (or especially
in her capacity as) a person working in Human Resources. Even when a
policy is laid down one would think that in an academic setting ongoing
dialogue about the correctness of certain policies should be allowable
especially on the part of persons involved in implementing the policy.
Before the University of Toledo ever had any policy about extending
medical benefits to employees in same-sex partnerships I'm sure that
staff in Human Resources had a right to advocate in newspapers that
benefits ought to be so extended. In doing so, they would have been
calling into question current policy. That is all that Ms. Dixon was
doing.
Third, the larger point of my open letter to the
President was that his personal views, and the policy of
the University, about homosexual orientation and behavior being a
comparable civil rights category with race, age, disability, and sex
were scientifically, philosophically, and morally groundless. In talking
about the University's "value system" and "the highest ethical
standard," Jacobs was entering the realm of morality. As such his, and
the University's, views on homosexuality must be able to command strong
rational arguments for making the analogy between homosexual attractions
and behavior on the one hand and the non-behavioral, benign
characteristics of race, sex, disability, and age on the other hand. My
point is that because he is unable to make such strong rational
arguments his and the University's stance is bogus. It should be
rethought and Ms. Dixon should be commended for jumpstarting such a new
discussion. Indeed, in disciplining Ms. Dixon for providing some
"diversity" of thinking, he violated the University's own standard of
"creating an environment that values and fosters diversity." He doesn't
want diversity; he wants conformity to his own intellectually
indefensible personal and political views.
Fourth, the critic argues that I am forgetting that
religion enjoys civil rights protections. This is exactly what the
critic is forgetting, for Ms. Dixon's right to maintain her religious
convictions without being penalized by her employer have been violated.
The critic claims that my research was "a bit sloppy."
Let him or her demonstrate where this is so. So far s/he has made a case
for nothing.
Sincerely,
Robert Gagnon, Ph.D.